|
Post by scfc5 on Oct 4, 2011 15:36:34 GMT
It wouldn't be Sky that has to watermark - Sky just broadcast here. It would be the Premier League to ensure that all of their overseas output has the EPL (I hate that term!) on-screen logos etc. and do not provide a raw feed that is blank. On the face of it, the feed that is watched already in many pubs has the Premier League hallmarking in it - the score box is distinctive for example - so at a basic level it strikes me that they have already ensured anyone showing that is still breaching copyright.
|
|
|
Post by steino72 on Oct 4, 2011 17:16:46 GMT
It may not be all good news, just seen our very own Malcolm Clarke on BBC 6 o'clock news
|
|
|
Post by supersmashinggreat on Oct 4, 2011 17:44:08 GMT
Just stick normal sky in the pubs, i've got some mini guinness stickers that you can stick in the bottom right of your screen if anyone wants one.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2011 17:50:29 GMT
It may not be all good news, just seen our very own Malcolm Clarke on BBC 6 o'clock news There is NO GOOD NEWS for the supporter who pays to follow their team, only bad news. At least the free loaders get to watch the football in the pub.
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Oct 4, 2011 18:56:10 GMT
This is a larger issue than just Sky. WE are part of the EU, and that gives us rights to buy products anywhere in the EU. What Sky are doing is selling something and then telling the customers where they can buy it without taking into account that we live in a legal free trade area. They have no right to tell customers that they can only buy their product in the UK when we are part of a much larger entity. An analogy would be them telling people in Stoke that you can only buy your Sky card in Stoke, and that if you bought one from Bristol and plugged it into a Sky box in Stoke, you would be in breach of contract. Just broaden the concept of Stoke/Bristol to UK/Greece. They are both as relevant. They would have a point if the woman bought her card in a non-EU country, but she didn't.
OS.
|
|
|
Post by knype on Oct 4, 2011 18:59:19 GMT
OS, did you just post the same reply on a wrong thread or am I going mad?
|
|
|
Post by steino72 on Oct 4, 2011 19:04:03 GMT
I disagree THE GORDON, Sky will pay less for rights, Footballers will earn less, still not parity to say a brain surgeon. I will still go to the matches and will watch the away games either through my own stream or down the pub, Its not going to stop people from going to the live event and never will.
|
|
|
Post by Silverdale on Oct 4, 2011 19:29:09 GMT
This has opened a massive can of worms.
Lower league clubs will be shitting it.
If the wages and transfer money starts to drop then this will affect the whole ethos of the football league system in the uk.
If a club needs more income then where do u think it will come from?
If Sky wont pay as much for the rights then what will happen?
Some PL players are on silly money long term contracts.
How will some of the lesser clubs afford to pay them?
Will the price of season tickets and match day tickets go up?
Surely this will force even more to watch it in the pub.
It will be a very interesting few weeks to see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2011 19:54:31 GMT
I disagree THE GORDON, Sky will pay less for rights, Footballers will earn less, still not parity to say a brain surgeon. I will still go to the matches and will watch the away games either through my own stream or down the pub, Its not going to stop people from going to the live event and never will. Admission prices will go up to make up some of the cash shortfall from the reduced TV deal. The good footballers will not earn less money because foreign countries will be able to tempt them abroad because of the tax breaks they can offer. The football fan who attends matches will end up paying more money to watch an inferior product. The SPL is a good example of a league without a decent TV deal.
|
|
|
Post by steino72 on Oct 4, 2011 20:02:10 GMT
Season tickets take up less than 20% of our revenue, can't see the club raping the fans like that
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Oct 4, 2011 20:52:42 GMT
I disagree THE GORDON, Sky will pay less for rights, Footballers will earn less, still not parity to say a brain surgeon. I will still go to the matches and will watch the away games either through my own stream or down the pub, Its not going to stop people from going to the live event and never will. Admission prices will go up to make up some of the cash shortfall from the reduced TV deal. The good footballers will not earn less money because foreign countries will be able to tempt them abroad because of the tax breaks they can offer. The football fan who attends matches will end up paying more money to watch an inferior product. The SPL is a good example of a league without a decent TV deal. Disagree. Ticket prices are set at what the market can bear. They are not related to the costs of the club. If the market can't bear higher ticket prices and the TV money dries up (because an unfair monopoly is broken), then clubs will have to cut their costs accordingly. It would seem there is plenty of scope to this in the PL because player wages are so crazy. Even in the lower leagues costs could be cut, I imagine that even Div 4 players are earning a fair whack over the minimum wage. There's plenty of money sloshing around to keep 4 divisions of proffessional football going in England if it's distributed properly. You might have a point if you say that it means that the PL will be marginally less competitive in relation to other big leagues but, to be honest, I care more about having a league with healthy competition where the fans aren't ripped off than having English clubs always in the latter stages of the Champions League.
|
|
|
Post by Akinbadbuy on Oct 4, 2011 21:10:31 GMT
So pleased those greedy pigs at Sky have lost this case. They are systematically ruining football in this country. If Joe BLoggs wants to pay to watch Stoke at 3pm on a Saturday then that's his choice. Sky have no right to tell people where they can and can't buy their TV Pictures from.
|
|
|
Post by Tubes on Oct 4, 2011 21:34:40 GMT
I will bet money that TV revenue for the PL continues to increase year on year, despite this ruling.
It won't affect anything. Any pub showing foreign feeds of the premier league will now be aggressively pursued by Sky's lawyers; you can bet there are thousands of cease and desist letters already in the post. The relative savings of installing and subscribing to a foreign service are much lower for individual consumers than they are for pubs, and I can imagine only a small percentage of UK Sky subscribers will be bothered to go down this route.
You will see countless articles over the next week or so with headlines like "what does this mean for football". The real answer is, not much. In a year we'll have all forgotten that this ruling ever existed.
|
|
|
Post by worstgolfer on Oct 4, 2011 22:39:26 GMT
its good for the pubs but it WILL have an impact somewhere? sky wont want to lose any money and as for stopping players wages spiraling well we are still in the recession but i doubt if the players have noticed? we are quite lucky to have peter coates and his family running our club this is the reason our st are one of the cheapest in the prem
|
|
|
Post by knowingeye on Oct 5, 2011 7:53:05 GMT
Portsmouth pub landlady Karen Murphy has not "won" anything, as her pub doesn't show the games! All she's in fact done is cause Sky to charge more and watermark the broadcasting TV pictures screwing the whole thing up for everyone. I wonder what her attitude would be if I bought a nice bottle of wine from the local supermarket and drank it in her pub. Something for nothing? I thought not. The latest comments from Karen Murphy indicate that she's had advice from her legal team and the fact she's won nothing.
|
|
|
Post by biglad180 on Oct 5, 2011 11:19:11 GMT
serves them right nothing but greedy bastards soon as they started putting pay per view on boxing they got to greedy by doing the same with certain footie games and american wrestling good on the woman i sy fuck you sky greedy bastards
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Oct 5, 2011 13:17:52 GMT
OS, did you just post the same reply on a wrong thread or am I going mad? No, you're not going mad. I did post it on the wrong thread first. OS.
|
|
|
Post by cousindupree on Oct 5, 2011 13:31:52 GMT
Its been a huge irony that overseas prem fans can watch a lot more premier league games than those living in the UK. When I was living in Dubai we had sports bars there which could show maybe 5/6 games kicking off on a saturday afternoon simultaneously at 3pm uk time. In the UK you can watch errmmm...let me see....zip at 3pm on a saturday if it was Sky's way.
|
|
|
Post by wearestoke10 on Oct 5, 2011 14:55:15 GMT
Does the money sky put in actually contribute a large amount to the overall rights pot? Id be suprised if it was anymore 20% when you take into consideration the money from other countries and I suppose to a smaller extent ESPN
|
|
|
Post by Tubes on Oct 5, 2011 14:56:52 GMT
Its been a huge irony that overseas prem fans can watch a lot more premier league games than those living in the UK. When I was living in Dubai we had sports bars there which could show maybe 5/6 games kicking off on a saturday afternoon simultaneously at 3pm uk time. In the UK you can watch errmmm...let me see....zip at 3pm on a saturday if it was Sky's way. I'm sure Sky would love to cover 3pm games. It's done to protect crowds at live games, particularly around the lower leagues where attendances might be lower if people could just sit in the pub and watch football.
|
|
|
Post by deadleg on Oct 6, 2011 13:05:18 GMT
This wasn't a victory for pubs, quite the opposite. All Karen Murphy won was the right for you or I to buy a decoder and watch a game in our own homes. What she can't do however is show the match in her pub to the public, so expect the police to be cracking down on pubs showing non-Sky games from now on.
|
|
|
Post by markbuxton on Oct 6, 2011 13:58:34 GMT
one of my local pubs showed sky without a public viewing license, they had a visit from sky who told the licensee to subscribe to them for a year and nothing more would be said. Pubs are a great place to watch sport, watching England games as you can`t get to the game can be fantastic, so if you can`t afford to get to a live game going to the pub should be an option for all.
|
|
|
Post by mayf on Oct 6, 2011 15:45:08 GMT
I might be wrong,I often am,but isn't it always sky (or ESPN) cameras and usually sky (or ESPN) commentators at all the games that these foreign companies use. They are basically stealing from SKY aren't they ?
|
|
|
Post by timbstoke on Oct 6, 2011 17:52:47 GMT
That's the thing - 90% of the time the foreign broadcast IS Sky - it's just Sky Greece or whatever instead of BSkyB. Same company, getting the same money - more in fact, because the landlord usually still has a UK box to show matches which *are* broadcast in the UK.
The whole thing does seem to be a farce. The entire case should have come down to two questions:
- Are Sky UK broadcasting the same match to UK subscribers? - Is the broadcast being shown by the defendant being used without the proper subscription fee being paid to whichever broadcaster is providing it?
If the answer to both questions is no, there should be no case to answer.
|
|